Pragmatics of Political Blame in British and Iraqi Parliaments Ammar Ghalib Saleem

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 11. Number1 March 2020 Pp.
331-375
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no1.24
Pragmatics of Political Blame in British and Iraqi Parliaments

Ammar Ghalib Saleem
Department of English, College of Languages
University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
Rihab Abduljaleel Saeed Alattar

Department of English, College of Languages
University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
Abstract
This research is a pragmatic study of political blame in British and Iraqi Parliaments. It aims to
unfold the similarities and/or differences in terms of the pragmatic and pragma-rhetorical strategies
used by British and Iraqi politicians when they exchange blame in both offensive and defensive
situations. A statistical analysis is conducted to quantitatively support the findings of the pragmatic
analysis. The analyses conducted have yielded different results among blame is a process
composed of two stages. Each stage is distinct for its pragmatic components and pragma-rhetorical
strategies. British and Iraqi MPs at the blame stage tend to utilize impoliteness as their main
strategy. However, British and Iraqi MPs perform differently at the blame avoidance stage in that
British MPs employ politeness as their main defense strategy, whereas Iraqi MPs exploit
impoliteness. Besides, British and Iraqi MPs at the blame stage tend to violate the maxim of quality
by fabricating their statements. At the blame avoidance stage, the maxim of relevance was the
most violated one through the strategy of evasion. As for pragma-rhetorical strategies, British and
Iraqi politicians at the blame stage exploit the pragma-rhetorical strategy of number-game to
support their credibility. At the blame avoidance stage, British politicians primarily utilize
hyperbole, whereas Iraqi politicians deploy shifting blame.
Keywords: blame avoidance, British and Iraqi parliaments, impoliteness, political blame,
politeness
Cite as: Saleem, A. G., & Alattar, R. A. S. (2020). Pragmatics of Political Blame in British and
Iraqi Parliaments. Arab World English Journal, 11 (1) 331-375.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no1.24
331
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 11. Number 1March 2020
Pragmatics of Political Blame in British and Iraqi Parliaments Saleem & Alattar
Introduction
Blame is a key term in adversarial discourse where politicians attribute something bad or wrong
to another person. In the blame game, Bull and Wells (2012) make clear that Members of
Parliament can be either blame makers (those who do the blaming) or blame takers (those who are
on the receiving end). The actions and policies of government officeholders often face blame for
constructive and destructive goals. In democratic societies, blame as well as blame avoidance
strategies come to the fore where politicians fight for power. According to Hansson (2015),
“Linguistic aspects of blame avoidance are yet to be studied by discourse analysts in great detail”
(p. 297). This requires a careful study to unfold critical features and techniques that help fuel blame
and make it spread through government offices. Thus, the present study sets itself toward
answering the following questions:
1. Are blame and blame avoidance strategies utilized by politicians similar or different in British
and Iraqi parliamentary settings?
2. Are blame makers’ linguistic utterances impolite and blame takers’ ones polite?
3. How are blame and blame avoidance strategies realized pragmatically and pragma-rhetorically
and what functions do they serve?
4. Are there any differences in the employment of the pragmatic strategies used by Iraqi and
British politicians for blaming and avoiding blame?
It is hypothesized that British politicians use indirect strategies of blame, whereas Iraqi
politicians tend to use direct ones. Moreover, blame makers and blame takers in both British and
Iraqi parliaments utilize certain pragmatic strategies. Thus, blame takers tend to use politeness
strategies more often than other pragmatic strategies to avoid damaging blame acts whereas blame
makers resort to using impoliteness strategies to damage the image of Prime Ministers and
Ministers. Moreover, Blame takers tend to violate the maxim of relevance more often than the
other maxims to evade blame. In contrast, blame makers are inclined to violating the maxim of
quality to create fabricated statements that are intended to shape people’s thoughts as they want.
It is also hypothesized that blame makers and blame takers in both British and Iraqi Parliaments
utilize certain pragma-rhetorical strategies at the blame stage different from those they utilize at
the blame avoidance stage.
Politicians often exploit the language for the sake of winning, a fact often spotted in political
debates, interviews and even campaigning speeches. These genres were extensively scrutinized by
discourse analysts worldwide. Still, parliamentary discourse requires more careful work to unfold
key features and concepts which distinguish it from other sub-genres of political discourse. Unlike
many genres of political discourse, parliamentary discourse represents the formal and
institutionalized variety (Bayley, 2004). It has been defined as “a norm-regulated interaction which
takes place among politically elected representatives for deliberation and decision-making
purposes in a specific political institutional setting (the parliament) and which displays recurrent
institutionalized communication patterns” (Ilie, 2010, p. 8). Being elected representatives,
Members of Parliament MPs) are expected to stand up for their opponents and promote their
voters’ views. The deliberative nature of parliamentary discourse incites MPs to enhance their own
image and question the credibility of government policies or other MPs’ political agendas.
Arab World English Journal 332

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Parliamentary questioning is a subgenre of parliamentary discourse. It does not only scrutinize

and question the government but even controls and reforms it. According to Wiberg (1995),
parliamentary questioning represents a chance to get information and ask for clarification on some
issues or to force a policy to be made. MPs direct questions to the PM and the Ministers about
issues they are ignorant of, in desire of inquiring about the actions or policies of the government,
or to know what the government intends to do regarding a particular issue without raising any
charges against them (as cited in ‫عباس‬, 2010; ‫الخطيب‬, 2006; ‫يحيى‬, 2008).
Due to the sensitivity and importance of the issues discussed during Iraqi and British
parliamentary question sessions held upon request of parliamentarians to interrogate the Prime
Minister including ministers of his/her cabinet regarding these issues, the latter are expected to
utilize all means of attack and defense represented by impoliteness strategies as well positive and
negative politeness strategies to pass their agenda contrary to what we see on television where
parliamentary question sessions appear, as Hoggart (2011) describes them (as cited in Bates, Kerr
& Byrne, 2012, p. 1), ' "like an unpleasant football match, in which the game played publicly is
accompanied by all sorts of secret grudge matches, settlement of scores and covert fouls committed
when the players hope the ref is not looking"’ being turned, therefore, "from a relatively ‘civilised’
parliamentary session into something of a rowdy, mud-slinging spectacle catered more towards
shallow political point scoring than serious scrutiny of prime ministerial activity" (Bates, Kerr &
Byrne., 2012, p. 1). In short, parliamentary question sessions, in Bull’ and Wells' (2012) opinion,
are "notorious for adversarial discourse" (p. 1) where the prime minister or any minister from
his/her cabinet being interrogated are always in an attack status not even having the chance to
defend themselves.
Literature Review
Parliamentary Discourse
In his discussion of the parliamentary discourse genre from a pragma-linguistic perspective, Ilie
(2015) argued that it "belongs to the wider field of political discourse. Hence it displays particular
institutionalized discursive features and complies with a number of specific rules and conventions"
(p. 2). Ilie (2015) went on to view parliamentary discourse from a rhetorical perspective saying
that it "belongs to the deliberative genre of political rhetoric, which is defined as an oratorical
discourse targeting an audience that is asked to make a decision by evaluating the advantages and
disadvantages of a future course of action" (p. 3). In their attempts to verbalize their opinions and
beliefs in the best ways when engaging in parliamentary debates, parliamentarians tend to
constantly utilize their rhetorical skills and, as Ilie (2015) phrases it, "take advantage of
institutional practices in order to score points by exploiting each other’s weaknesses and
vulnerabilities" (p. 2). Hence, it is often believed that parliamentarians act in adversarial ways,
especially in their debates over issues of vital national importance. It is worthy of note that some
of the more representative subgenres of the parliamentary discourse genre are "ministerial
statements, interpellations, parliamentary speeches, parliamentary debates, parliamentary (oral and
written) questions, and question time" which, in Ilie's (2015, p. 3) belief, "constitute goal-oriented
forms of demands or requests for action, reaction, and/or information". Of these subgenres the
present study focused on the parliamentary question.

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Parliamentary Questions (PQs) are questions put formally by an MP and provide the PM and
his/her cabinet with regular opportunities to give a public report on issues they are responsible for.
PQs can take two forms: oral or written. Written questions are intended to obtain information while
oral questions serve two functions: attack, if were asked by the opposition, or praise, if were asked
by government MPs (Ilie, 2017). Numerous motivations underlie parliamentary questioning,
among which Wiberg (1995) mentions the following:
- To request information.
- To press for action.
- To demand an explanation.
- To test ministers in controversial areas of their policies.
- To attack ministers in difficult political situations.
- To dispose of a large number of heterogeneous topics rapidly conveniently.
- To help build up a reputation in some particular matters.
- To demonstrate the government’s faults.
In the British Parliament, the Parliamentary Question session is called Prime Minister
Questions (PMQs). This kind of session is held every Wednesday from 12 p.m. to 12.30 p.m. An
MP starts with an ‘open question’ about the PM’s recent engagements. Following this type of
question, an MP can ask supplementary questions. The Leader of the Opposition is allowed to ask
the PM of up to six questions in succession. The PM does not have a clue about the questions
he/she will be asked. Government departments briefly inform the PM of possible subjects (UK
Parliament, 2019). The modern format of PMQs was introduced in 1961. It was aimed at
formalizing the way MPs raise questions to the PM. This has led PMQs to become an increasingly
significant event in British political life (Bates et al, 2012). The way questions are asked during
PMQs is not random. MPs submit their questions in advance. These are questions directed to the
PM about his recent and/or coming engagements. Because the questions are presented prior to the
session, the PM will have an idea about what he/she is going to be asked about and also the list of
MPs asking these questions (Bevan & John, 2015). As there are a lot of questions to be asked, a
few are only chosen to be raised by a process called “The Shuffle”, which is, to quote Kelly’s
words (2015) “a lottery, randomly choosing 15 Members whose name will go on the Order Paper
to ask questions to the Prime Minister” (p. 5). In PMQs, MPs will be either friends or foes. Two
kinds of questions are asked: negative and positive. Negative questions are raised by front- and
backbenchers of the opposition whereas positive questions are raised by front- and backbenchers
of the PM. The former is said to be critical in nature, allowing MPs to “put pressure on the
government to respond to issues they might rather avoid” (Bevan & John, 2015, p. 3). Whereas,
the latter is friendlier, shedding light on the bright side of the Government’s actions and policies.
On the other hand, the Iraqi Parliament has two types of sessions: regular and extraordinary.
The regular sessions are held along the four-year legislative term. While the extraordinary sessions
are held upon the request of the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the
Council of Representatives, or fifty members of the Council of Representatives. This kind of
session discusses subjects like economic crisis, war and natural disasters. The Iraqi Constitution
grants the Council of Representatives permission to monitor the performance of the Executive
Authority through Parliamentary Questions. Iraqi MPs can question the President of the Republic,
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
the PM and the Ministers. However, certain procedures need to be taken into consideration.
Questioning the President of the Republic must be based on a petition made by an absolute majority
of the members of the Council of Representatives. While inquiring about a policy and the
performance of the Council of Ministers or one of the Ministers requires at least twenty-five
members in order to be submitted to the Speaker of the Council of Representatives. MPs are
allowed to ask the PM and Ministers on any subject within their specialty. Each one of them must
answer the members’ questions. It is not allowed for other MPs to comment on the answer (Iraqi
Constitution). Similar to the traditions of the British Parliament, Iraqi MPs can question members
of the Presidency Council, the PM, his deputies, ministers, deputy ministers, or other members of
the government or leaders of independent commissions, and offices in written form, with
notification of the Presidency Commission. This means that there will be time for answers to be
prepared prior to the Question Session. Questions may be concerned with any subject the MP has
no knowledge about, or to know what the government intends to do regarding a particular issue.
MPs can also ask oral questions that are closely related to the main question (parliament.iq).
However, the number of questions that are asked by the Member is not specified (Iraqi
Constitution).
Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Model of Politeness
Despite numerous contributions to the theory of politeness, the highly influential work of Brown
and Levinson (1987) is still regarded the most comprehensive one (Eelen, 2001; Leech, 2005). The
components of their politeness theory are: face, face-threatening acts (FTAs) and positive and
negative politeness strategies.
Face is an important notion in relation to politeness theories. Brown and Levinson’s (1987, p.
61) notion of face as “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” is
adopted from Goffman (1967, p. 5) who defines face as a “positive social value a person effectively
claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact”. Brown and
Levinson’s (1987) concept of face is twofold: the positive face which is every member's wants to
be desirable to at least some other members, and the negative face which is every competent adult
member's desire for others not to impede his/her actions. To Brown and Levinson (1987), a face-
threatening act (FTA) is the one that runs against the face wants of the addressee and/or the
speaker. In other words, it damages the positive or negative face of a speaker or hearer. It is almost
impossible to satisfy all face wants, either positive or negative, of either the speaker or hearer.
However, the need to be polite is a necessary component of friendly communication and involves
the redressing of positive and negative face through a number of strategies. Brown and Levinson
(1987) provide four politeness strategies: bold on record, positive politeness, negative politeness
and off-record which are schematized in Figure one:
Figure 1. Brown and Levinson's (1987, p. 60) scheme of politeness strategies

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
A participant may choose to go on-record to deliver the message unambiguously. This has the
implication that the participant does not want to minimize any threat to H’s face. Brown and
Levinson (1987) believe that there are two options for speakers to choose from: (a) doing an act
“without a redressive action, badly” or (b) doing an act with a redressive action through the use
of positive and negative politeness strategies. The former is meant to do an act “in the most
direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible”. The latter is intended to give “face to the
addressee” and “counteract the potential face damage of the FTA” (p. 69). As for positive
politeness strategies, they seek to mitigate the threat to H’s positive face. Foley (1997) states that
“the speaker (S) indicates his recognition that the hearer (H) wishes to have his positive-face
wants honored” (p. 271). These positive strategies are usually used by speakers who know their
hearers quite well. Brown and Levinson (1987, pp. 103-129) propose fifteen positive politeness
strategies which include:
Strategy 1: Notice, attend, to H (interests, wants, needs, goods)
Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with).
Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H.
Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers.
Strategy 5: Seek agreement.
Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement.
Strategy 7: Presuppose / raise / assert common ground.
Strategy 8: Joke.
Strategy 9: Assert or Presuppose S's knowledge of and concern for H's wants.
Strategy 10: Offer, Promise.
Strategy 11: Be optimistic.
Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity.
Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons.
Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity.
Strategy 15: Give gifts to the H (goods, sympathy, understanding cooperation).
Speakers, on the other hand, employ negative politeness to mitigate the imposition of
particular impositions on the addresses. Brown and Levinson (1987, pp. 132-210) name ten
negative politeness strategies, these are:
Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect.
Strategy 2: Questions, hedge.
Strategy 3: Be pessimistic.
Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition.
Strategy 5: Give deference.
Strategy 6: Apologize.
Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H.
Strategy 8: Generalize the FTA as a rule, regulation, or obligation to disassociate S and H from
imposition.
Strategy 9: Nominalize.
Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H.
The last of these strategies is doing FTAs off-record which entails, as Brown and Levinson
(1987) show, the conveyance of numerable communicative intentions by the speaker’s
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
communicative action. In other words, no specific or explicit intention is revealed. This shields
the speaker against being held responsible for doing an FTA and keeps all options on the table for
the addressee to elicit the desired intention. In order for this to happen, the speaker violates the
Cooperative Principle and its maxims. Brown & Levinson (ibid.) exhibit fifteen strategies for
doing off-record FTAs which invite conversational implicatures via hints triggered by violation of
Grice's Maxims of relevance, quantity, and quality or result in vagueness and ambiguity through
the violation of the maxim of manner as shown below:
Violating Relevance Maxim
Strategy 1: Give hints.
Strategy 2: Give association clues.
Strategy 3: Presuppose.
Strategy 4: Understate.
Violating Quantity Maxim

Strategy 5: Overstate.
Strategy 6: Use tautologies.
Strategy 7: Use contradictions.
Violating Quality Maxim

Strategy 8: Be ironic.
Strategy 9: Use metaphors.
Strategy 10: Use rhetorical questions.
Violating Manner Maxim
Strategy 11: Be ambiguous.
Strategy 12: Be vague.
Strategy 13: Over-generalize.
Strategy 14: Displace H
Strategy 15: Be incomplete, use ellipsis.
Culpeper’s (1996) Model of Impoliteness

Culpeper’s framework of impoliteness is based on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness
theory. He argues that Brown and Levinson’s account of impoliteness is marginal to everyday
conversation. He urges the need for establishing an analytical framework of impoliteness (Mullany
& Stockwell, 2010). In his model, Culpeper analyzes conflictive and impolite illocutions in U.S.
army training discourse and many other discourses. This makes Culpeper’s (1996) model more
reliable than other models.
Culpeper (1996) looks at the other face of the coin and states that “instead of enhancing or
supporting face, impoliteness super strategies are a means of attacking face” (p. 8). He describes
them as follows:
- Bald on record impoliteness – the FTA is performed in a direct, clear, unambiguous and concise
way in circumstances where face is not irrelevant or minimized.

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
- Positive impoliteness – the use of strategies designed to damage the addressee’s positive face
wants.
- Negative impoliteness – the use of strategies designed to damage the addressee’s negative face
wants.
- Sarcasm or mock politeness – the FTA is performed with the use of politeness strategies that are
obviously insincere, and thus remain surface realizations.
- Withhold politeness – the absence of politeness work where it would be expected.
Culpeper (1996, pp. 357-358) also proposes sub-strategies to positive output strategies:
- Ignore, snub the other – fail to acknowledge the other’s presence.
- Exclude the other from an activity.
- Disassociate from the other – for example, deny association or common ground with the other;
avoid sitting together.
- Be disinterested, unconcerned, unsympathetic.
- Use inappropriate identity markers – for example, use title and surname when a close relationship
pertains, or a nickname when a distant relationship pertains.
- Use obscure or secretive language – for example, mystify the other with jargon, or use a code
known to others in the group, but not the target.
- Seek disagreement – select a sensitive topic.
- Make the other feel uncomfortable – for example, do not avoid silence, joke, or use small talk.
- Use taboo words – swear, or use abusive or profane language.
- Call the other names – use derogatory nominations.
Sub-strategies to negative output strategies involve:
- Frighten – instill a belief that action detrimental to the other will occur.
- Condescend, scorn or ridicule – emphasize your relative power. Be contemptuous.
- Do not treat the other seriously.
- Belittle the other (e.g. use diminutives).
- Invade the other’s space – literally or metaphorically.
- Explicitly associate the other with a negative aspect – personalize, use the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘you’.
- Put the other’s indebtedness on record.
Grice's Cooperative Principle
In 1975, Paul Grice introduced the Cooperative Principle, which reads “Make your
conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted
purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” (p. 45). The Cooperative
Principle allows language users to communicate cooperatively to be understood in a particular
context. Bach (2006) captures this observation when he divides a speaker’s participation into two
layers: what is said and what is implicated. He also notes that what a speaker means by his/her
utterances may not be explicitly available to listeners.
Under the cooperative principle, Grice (1975: 45-46) lists four maxims:
1. Quantity
Make your contribution as informative as is required.
Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
2. Quality
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Do not say what you believe to be false.

Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
3. Relation
Make your contributions relevant.
4. Manner
Avoid ambiguity.
Avoid obscurity of expression.
Be brief.
Be orderly.
Grice believes that following the cooperative principle and its maxims marks participants as
rational agents. However, there are situations where language users may fail to fulfill the maxims
in four ways: violating, flouting, opting out and classing. As far as this study is concerned,
violating the maxims is going to be the main focus.
Violating Grice's maxims results in four strategies which include:

1. Fabrication violates the maxim of quality. It can take the form of saying something that is
completely false or failure to provide adequate evidence. (Gupta, Sakamoto & Ortony, 2012)
2. Concealment. Ekman (2009) considers concealment a deliberative act of withholding information.
Hiding information results in the violation of the maxim of quantity when the speaker provides
insufficient information or more information than is required in a specific situation.
3. Vagueness. This is a strategy which is employed to create a fuzzy image in the mind of people to
shield themselves against possible attacks and direct the attention towards unimportant things.
4. Evasion. Fraser (2010) defines evasion as the failure that the hearer experiences when he/she
receives information from the speaker that does not fit his/her expectation. Evasion might be the
most powerful defensive strategy which is exploited to avoid unveiling correct information that
may have potential damage to one's positions.
Rhetorical Devices
As has already been mentioned, combining both pragmatics and rhetoric within the same
framework is useful in illustrating both the communicative intention and the intention of
persuasion which occur in most communicative uses of language (Larrazabal & Korta, 2002).
McQuarrie and Mick (1996) maintain that rhetorical devices are strategically utilized in persuasion
to deliver more effective forms of expression than those of the literal meaning of the propositional
content. To them, a rhetorical figure of speech such as hyperbole, litotes, irony, metaphor, number-
game, and shifting blame, to name but a few is “an artful deviation in the form” that is used to
convey unconventional meaning.
Pragmatics of Blame and Blame Avoidance

The ritualized character of parliamentary discourse is governed by traditions, rules and
regulations. Rules and rituals are not unified in all parliaments but they all require particular
linguistic choices. MPs do not use any kind of language. Instead, social and institutional norms of
their culture restrict their access to certain language forms. All parliaments serve similar goals.
Still, there are some linguistic and non-linguistic variables that make parliaments dissimilar. These
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
include observing certain rules of politeness, tolerating aggressive linguistic choices, utilizing
concepts of irony and humor, etc (Bayley, 2004).
There is no doubt that parliamentary discourse is adversarial. MPs often criticize and/or accuse
each other or government ministers for some policies or actions provided that they prove them
with evidence. In other words, MPs exchange blame and denial regarding domestic or global
issues. In Alasko's (2011) opinion, blame is manifested through criticism, accusation, punishment
and humiliation. With these strategies in mind, blame can detect fault with another individual or a
group. Hence, blame is a powerful tool that can be used for better or worse. One of the requirements
of ‘blame’ is the occurrence of two actors: a blame maker or ‘blamer’, and blame taker or ‘blamee’
(Hood, 2011). In the parliamentary setting, which is characterized by conflict talk (Wodak, 2006),
government MPs and opponent parties exchange blame over recent policies and actions that each
believes to be true from their standpoint. As such, an MP can be a blame maker one day and a
blame taker the other. However, blame can be highly risky in parliamentary discourse. If a blame
maker cannot prove an MP or another government officeholder blameworthy, he/she may lose
credibility, worsen the issue under discussion or be the subject of blame him/herself. As such, a
blame maker should be very careful while attributing blame.
Blame frustrates people and, ultimately, does not let them “speak up or take the right action”
when they should (Dattner, 2011, p. 2). Thus, to be on the safe side, blame takers blame the act of
blame itself and try their best to prove its misplacement on an individual or group. In other words,
they avoid blame by denying their “agency, competence, and responsibility for the unfavorable
outcome” (Tilly, 2008, p. 103), in the belief that fingers should, rather, be pointed at others who
are blameworthy. Accordingly, blame takers utilize various blame avoidance strategies which
include among many others: 'limiting the agenda' which aims to prevent politically harmful issues
from being established in the first place, 'finger-pointing' when politicians may resort to pass the
responsibility for a decision on some other party or government officeholder, 'shifting blame'
which politicians use when the responsibility for an unfavorable decision cannot be placed on
someone else, so they try to shift blame or find a scapegoat, 'denial' as when politicians try their
best to prove that there is no problem at all to eliminate the rise of blame, and 'lying' which
politicians practice to protect themselves against possible reputation damaging acts. Dijk (2008)
sees lying as “a verbal act that involves the illegitimate manipulation of knowledge in interaction
and communication” (pp. 245-246). Generally, lying violates the ethical norms of truthfulness that
form the basis of all human interaction.
From a pragmatic perspective, parliamentarians are supposed to act and interact with each other
using various strategies which include politeness strategies, impoliteness strategies, and strategies
of violating Grice’s maxims. Lakoff (1975) views politeness as a set of strategies intended to
mitigate dispute in communication. Leech (1980) defines politeness as a means of “strategic
conflict avoidance” (p. 18). With reference to face-saving, Goffman (1972) indicates that “the
person will have two points of view – a defensive orientation toward saving his own face and a
protective orientation toward saving the other’s face” (p. 325). As such, the defensive theme of
Lakoff’s definition is intended to save a speaker’s face while the protective theme of Leech’s
definition is meant to save the other’s face. Rather than dealing with politeness, Culpeper, Eelen
and Bousfield have taken the opposite direction, i.e. impoliteness. They argue that politeness
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
theories deal with impoliteness superficially and inadequately. Culpeper (1996) defines
impoliteness as the use of strategies that are intended to cause social disruption. This definition
goes directly against Brown and Levinson’s (1987) definition of politeness. Eelen (2001) points
out that politeness and impoliteness are related to each other. She believes that they represent two
sides of the same coin. In other words, people’s interaction is either positive (polite) or negative
(impolite). Eelen (2001) mentions two possibilities: first, “impoliteness is doubly negatively
defined: as the absence of politeness which results from the absence of cultural scripts”, and
second, “the conceptualization of impoliteness as a conscious act in its own right” (p. 100). As for
the last set of strategies, Grice believes that following the cooperative principle and its maxims
marks participants as rational agents. However, there are situations where language users may fail
to fulfill the maxims in four ways: violating, flouting, opting out and classing. The major focus in
this study is violating the maxims which results in a set of strategies which include fabrication,
concealment, vagueness, and evasion.
In their exchanges of adversarial, challenging, and often mutually accusatory replies (Ilie,
2015), blame makers and blame takers may have recourse to a set of rhetorical strategies. Rhetoric
changes reality by creating a discourse in which the audience is so immersed. In this context,
rhetoric is persuasive. The relationship between pragmatics and rhetoric is deeply rooted. Bitzer
(1968) states that "a work of rhetoric is pragmatic; it comes into existence for the sake of something
beyond itself” (pp. 3-4). Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu (2012) asserts that pragmatics and rhetoric share the
same objectives: language in use and the intentionality to produce certain effects on the addressee.
This link is also asserted by Archer, Aijmer and Wichmann (2012) who assert that a pragmatic
view of language implies the use of language to affect others and alter their actions in certain ways.
Larrazabal and Korta (2002) claim that a ‘pragma-rhetorical’ perspective would be useful in
illustrating the “intentional phenomena that occur in most communicative uses of language,
namely, the communicative intention and the intention of persuading” (pp. 1-2).Therefore,
rhetorical devices, such as figures of speech, can be useful to deliver powerful messages that are
persuasive in a certain context.
It is noteworthy that the aforementioned pragmatic and rhetorical strategies represent the
components of an eclectic model which constitutes the basic apparatus for systematizing the data
obtained from the analysis of both British and Iraqi corpora in the present study.
Methodology
Research Design
In the current study a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches is used for the
investigation of British and Iraqi corpora with respect to the strategies utilized in the interrogation
process. According to Duff (2010), “quantitative and qualitative approaches are currently viewed
as complementary rather than fundamentally incompatible, and a more mixed-paradigm research
is recommended” (p. 54). Qualitative research serves to answer questions which begin with: Why?
How? In what way? (Hancock, 1998). To enhance the qualitative approach, the researcher adopts
the quantitative approach to subject the analyzed data to statistical treatment to “support or refute
alternate knowledge claims” (Williams, 2007, p. 66).

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Corpus Description
Eight British and Iraqi transcripts of parliamentary sessions dated from 2016 to 2019 will be
examined as a first stage in the analysis to obtain an overview of how certain goals are achieved
by examining the pragmatic and pragma-rhetorical strategies detected in British and Iraqi corpora
to find out which of these strategies are more characteristic of the British and Iraqi parliamentary
discourse and which are more frequently used than others in the British and Iraqi texts by
conducting a statistical analysis. It is worth mentioning that the transcripts have been downloaded
from the official websites https://hansard.parliament.uk and https://www.parliament.iq
respectively but the data selected for analysis comprises a set of excerpts representing those
conversational interactions which exhibit noticeable blame and blame avoidance acts. Tables one
and two provide a description of the British and Iraqi corpora selected for the analysis in this study.
Table 1. Description of British data

Session No. Speakers Status of Speakers Topics Setting
S1 - Thangam Debbonaire Labor MP Climate change 26 June, 2019
- Theresa May Leader of the Conservative Party and the Arms export Palace of
- Jeremy Corbyn PM Violence in Westminster
- Khalid Mahmood Leader of the Labor Party Yemen (London)
- Ian Blackford Labor MP Racism
- Nick Thomas- Leader of the Scottish National Party Brexit deal
Symonds Labor MP
S2 - Theresa May Leader of the Conservative Party and the Brexit plan 9th May, 2019
- Jeremy Corbyn PM Customs Palace of
Leader of the Labor Party Jobs Westminster
(London)
S3 - David Cameron Leader of the Conservative Party and the Economy 9th March, 2016
- Jeremy Corbyn PM Poverty Palace of
Leader of the Labor Party Cuts Westminster
(London)
S4 - Boris Johnson Leader of the Conservative Party and the Economy 4th September,
- Jeremy Corbyn PM Poverty 2019 -Palace of
Leader of the Labor Party Cuts Westminster
(London)
Table 2. Description of Iraqi data

Session Speakers Status of Speakers Topics Setting
No.
S1 - Hanan Al-Fatlawi - MP Corruption 31st January,
- Qasim Al-Fahdawi - Minister of Electricity 2018/Baghdad
S2 - Abdulrazzq - MP Corruption 3rd February,
Mehebis - Minister of Electricity 2018/Baghdad
- Qasim Al-Fahdawi
S3 - Haitham Al-Jubori - MP Corruption 25th August,
- Hoshyar Zebari - Minister of Finance 2016/Baghdad
S4 - Awad Al-Awadi - MP Corruption 1st April, 2017/Baghdad
- Adeela Hmood - Minister of Health

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
The Analytical Model

An eclectic model which draws upon ideas and assumptions adopted from a set of paradigms,
which were introduced in the literature review, has been developed to accord with the achievement
of the aims of the study and the verification or rejection of its hypotheses. It is divided into two
stages: blame and blame avoidance. Each stage comprises, as an analytical tool, a set of pragmatic
and pragma-rhetorical strategies adopted from the following four paradigms.
Figures one and two graph the analytical model which comprises a set of strategies utilized at
the blame and blame avoidance stages in the parliamentary setting. This model has been developed
from the four paradigms already discussed.
Figure 2. The eclectic model of the blame stage
Figure 3. The eclectic model of the blame avoidance stage

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Results and Discussion

British Data
At the pragmatic level, the statistical analysis of the British corpus which comprises four
Parliamentary Question sessions reveals the following rates and frequencies of the strategies used
at both blame and blame avoidance stages as detailed in table three:
Table 3. Overall frequencies of pragmatic strategies detected at the blame and blame avoidance
stages in British sessions
Pragmatic Strategies
Violation of G's
Politeness Impoliteness
Maxims Total
Strategies Strategies
Stage Strategies
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Blame Stage 105 43.5 122 50.6 15 6.2 242 39.1
Blame Avoidance
245 64.9 77 20.4 55 14.5 377 62
Stage
Total 350 56.6 199 32.03 70 11.3 619 100
To begin with, a close examination of these statistics shows that out of the (619) strategies used at
both stages politeness ones have the highest frequency with (350) instances making up 56.6%
while impoliteness as well as violation of G's maxims strategies show less frequency with (199)
and (70) instances constituting 32.03% and 11.3% respectively, these results suggest that
politicians in the British parliament appraise avoidance by being indirect.
As for the pragmatic strategies utilized at the blame stage, both politeness and impoliteness
strategies were found to be somehow equal in rates making up 43.5% and 50.6% respectively, this
reflects a preference on the part of blamers to use a strategic method which is to prove blamees
blameworthy especially with regard to issues which the former believes to be true from their
standpoint but at the same time they tend to avoid conflict by saving blamees' face which is
necessary even in a political setting like the Parliament. In this respect, Sheridan (2013, p. 4-5)
writes: "We need politeness when we criticize others, give negative feedback, or do things that
threaten people’s ego and face, so as to allow social interactions to communicate face-threatening
information while simultaneously showing concern for others". Only (15) instances representing
the violation of Gricean maxims strategies at the blame stage were spotted in the data analyzed
forming 6.2% of the strategies used at this stage due to both blamers and blamee's realization of
the importance of the critical issues being discussed where there is no room for any of the deceptive
strategies.
Regarding the strategies used at the blame avoidance stage, the data under analysis reveal that
politeness strategies represent (245) instances making up the highest rate of frequency 64.9% in
comparison with (77) instances of impoliteness strategies and (55) instances of violating Gricean
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
maxims forming only 20.4% and 14.5% respectively. The high frequency of politeness strategies
conveys that blame takers prefer to take a defensive position and obey Erskine May's (1844)
Treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament that prevents conflicts. The
lower instances of impoliteness strategies and the violations of Gricean maxims indicate that blame
takers are more careful with their statements than blame makers to avoid escalating things and,
therefore, escape blame.
As regards pragma-rhetorical strategies whose rates and frequencies of occurrence are detailed
in table four, the data under analysis revealed that they are more frequently used at the blame
avoidance stage than they are at the blame stage with 54.5% and 45.5% respectively. This suggests
that those politicians are primarily motivated by their desire to avoid blame leading them to adopt
a variety of pragma-rhetorical strategies, including hyperbole, number-game, shifting, litotes,
metaphor, and irony, for fear of their reputations being diminished and their careers being damaged
as a result.
Table 4. Overall frequencies of pragma-rhetorical strategies detected at the blame and blame
avoidance stages in British sessions
Pragma Rhetorical Strategies
Stage No. %
Blame Stage 71 45.5
Blame Avoidance Stage 85 54.5
Total 156 100
Blame Stage
Politeness Strategies
As shown in table five the total number of politeness strategies at the blame stage is (105)
among which positive strategies constitute the highest proportion with (55) instances making up
52.3% in the four sessions. Negative strategies come in the second place with (31) instances
representing 29.5% followed by (19) instances which stand for bald off-record strategies making
up 18.09%. Positive strategies have scored higher because blame makers want to protect the
positive face of their counterparts by having their views and actions supported within the
Parliament. In other words, they help politicians accept the personalities and policies of their
interlocutors to eliminate doubt and establish solidarity and cooperation to ease the questioning
process.

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Table 5. Overall frequencies of the politeness strategies detected at the blame stage
Positive Negative Bald off- Total

Politeness Politeness Record
No No No
% % No. % %
. . .
55 52.3 31 29.5 19 18.09 10 10

5 0
.
The beginning is with positive politeness strategies whose frequencies and percentages are detailed
in table six.
Table 6. A detailed description of the overall frequencies of positive politeness strategies
detected in the four sessions
Positive Politeness Strategies
Include
Notice,
Session both S and Give (or ask
attend, to Total
No. H in the for) reasons
H
activity
No. % No. % No. % No. %
1 3 5.5 4 7.3 1 1.8 8 14.6
2 4 7.3 0 0 0 0 4 7.3
3 16 29.1 2 3.6 0 0 18 32.7
4 22 40 2 3.6 1 1.8 25 45.4
Total 45 81.8 8 14.5 2 3.6 55 100
Looking at the percentages of occurrence of positive politeness strategies, it can be noted that the
Strategy ‘Include both S and H in the same activity’ is far more frequently used than Strategies
‘Give (or ask for) reasons’ and ‘Notice, attend, to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods)’ having
the frequency of 81.8 %, 14.5% and 3.6% respectively. This is mainly because politicians primarily
aim to achieve cooperation with their interlocutors and mitigate FTAs to save their face from being
damaged.
In the second place come negative politeness strategies which amount to (31) instances as
shown in table seven which provides a detailed statistical analysis of each of these strategies which
were found to be used in the British setting.

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Table 7. A detailed description of the overall frequencies of negative politeness strategies in the
four sessions
Negative Politeness Strategies
Sessio Minimize
Questions, Be Impersonal
n No. the Total
hedge pessimistic ize S and H
imposition
No. % No. % No. % No % No. %
.
1 4 12.9 2 6.4 1 3.2 0 0 7 22.
5
2 0 0 0 0 2 6.4 0 0 2 6.4
3 1 3.2 3 9.7 1 3.2 0 0 5 16.
1
4 7 22.6 6 19.4 2 6.4 2 6.4 17 54.
8
Total 12 38.7 11 35.5 6 19.2 2 6.4 31 10
0
As for Strategies ‘Questions, hedge’ and ‘Be pessimistic’, a close approximation is noticed
between their percentages 38.7% and 35.5% respectively in comparison with Strategies ‘Minimize
the imposition’ and ‘Impersonalize S and H’ having the frequencies of 19.2% and 6.4%
respectively. The dominance of Strategies ‘Questions, hedge’ and ‘Be pessimistic’ shows that
blame makers do not want to coerce nor assume that H is likely to do something (Brown &
Levinson, 1987).
The only bald off-record strategy detected in the British corpus at the blame stage is
'presupposition' whose ratios of occurrence in the four British sessions are detailed in table eight.
It is worth noting that this type of strategies is used far less than both positive and negative
politeness strategies with (19) instances only. The reason behind its low occurrence can possibly
be attributed to the fact that politicians do not want to leave the addressee with a number of
interpretations that may arise from going off-record. Rather, they try their best to attribute clear
communicative intentions to their acts (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
Table 8. A detailed description of the overall frequencies of bald off-record strategies in the four
sessions
Sessio Presupposition
n No. No %
.
1 3 15.8
2 1 5.3
3 7 36.8
4 8 42.1
Total 19 100

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Impoliteness Strategies
The statistical analysis of impoliteness strategies which total (122) revealed a close
approximation in the statistical results between positive strategies which constitute (63) instances
typifying 51.6%, which is only 3.3% higher than negative strategies which amount to 48.3% with
(59) instances. These approximate results indicate that blame makers want to severely damage the
addressee’s face and wants by seeking disagreement, using derogatory nominations, explicitly
associating them with negative acts, making the other feel uncomfortable, etc.
Table 9. Overall frequencies of the impoliteness strategies detected at the blame stage
Positive Negative Total

Impoliteness Impoliteness
No. % No. % No. %
63 51.6 59 48.3 122 100
Concerning the occurrence of positive impoliteness strategies, the findings in table ten show
clearly that there is more preference for Strategy ‘Make the other feel uncomfortable’ than
strategies ‘Disassociate from the other’, ‘Seek disagreement’, and ‘Call the other names’ with
92.05%, 3.15%, 3.2%, and 1.6% respectively. This is because blame makers want to push the
pressure on their counterparts to the extreme to question their competency as Ministers and make
them feel insecure in the questioning process itself to increase the possibility of damage caused to
their political status and disclose their failing actions and policies.
Table 10. A detailed description of the overall frequencies of the positive impoliteness strategies
detected at the blame stage
Positive Impoliteness Strategies
Sessio Make the other Disassociate

Call the Seek
n No. feel from the Total
other names disagreement
uncomfortable other
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
1 8 12.7 0 0 1 1.6 1 1.6 10 15.9
2 17 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 27
3 2 3.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.1
4 31 49.2 2 3.15 1 1.6 0 0 32 53.9
Total 58 92.05 2 3.15 2 3.2 1 1.6 63 100

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
As for negative impoliteness strategies whose percentages of occurrence in the four sessions are
detailed in table 11, the results indicated that the Strategy of ‘Explicitly associating the other with
a negative aspect’ is by far the most frequently used strategy with 79.6% in comparison with
‘Condescend, scorn or ridicule’ which records 20.3% only. This reflects the blame makers’
obsession with attributing blame towards their counterparts by explicitly associating them with
negative actions and policies to ruin their reputation and make them lose power and position.
Table 11. A detailed description of the overall frequencies of the negative impoliteness strategies
Negative Impoliteness Strategies
Explicitly
Session associate the other Condescend, scorn Total
No. with a negative or ridicule
aspect
No. % No. % No. %
1 7 11.8 2 3.4 9 15.2
2 3 5.1 4 6.8 7 11.9
3 18 30.5 0 0 18 30.5
4 19 32.2 6 10.2 25 42.4
Total 47 79.6 12 20.4 59 100
Violation of Grice's Maxims Strategies
Regarding the violation of Grice's maxims strategies, table 12 makes clear that fabrication is
far more frequently used than vagueness with (14) instances for the former vs one instance only
for the latter making up 93.3% and 6.6% respectively. This demonstrates that blame makers want
to intentionally create false beliefs in the minds of others to make them easy to control and
deceive unlike vagueness which, according to Zhang (2011), can be passive when a speaker has
no other choice due to the lack of knowledge.
Table 12. Overall frequencies of the violation of Grice's maxims detected at the blame stage
Violation of Grice's Maxims

Strategies
Total
Fabrication Vagueness
No %
No. %
No. % .
14 93.3 1 6.6 15 10
0
The incidence of these two strategies in the four sessions is detailed in table 13.

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Table 13. A detailed description of the overall frequencies of the violation of Grice's maxims
strategies detected at the blame stage
Session Strategies Total
No. Fabrication Vagueness
No. % No. % No. %
1 5 33.3% 1 6.6% 6 39.9
2 1 6.6% 0 0% 1 6.6
3 2 13.3% 0 0% 2 13.3
4 6 40% 0 0% 6 40
Total 14 93.2% 1 6.6% 15 100
Pragma-Rhetorical Strategies
As explicated in table 14, a modest approximation is noticed between number-game and
hyperbole with 47.9% and 42.3% respectively in comparison with metaphor and litotes which are
manifested poorly with only (4) and (3) instances making 5.6% and 4.2% of the total number of
pragma-rhetorical strategies at this stage. No instances representing irony were detected in the data
under analysis. This is because politicians want to attribute blame acts directly to their
counterparts. In other words, the real meaning is not hidden or contradicted by the literal meaning
of the words.
Table 14. A detailed description of the overall frequencies of pragma-rhetorical strategies
Number- Hyperbol Metapho Total
Litotes Irony
Sessio Game e r
n No. No No No No %
No. % % % No. % %
. . . .
14. 25 35.
1 14 19.7 10 1 1.4 0 0 0 0
1 2
2 3 4.2 5 7 1 1.4 1 1.4 0 0 10 14
18 25.
3 10 14.1 7 9.8 1 1.4 0 0 0 0
3
11. 18 25.
4 7 9.85 8 1 1.4 2 2.8 0 0
3 3
42. 71 100
Total 34 47.9 30 4 5.6 3 4.2 0 0
3
Blame Avoidance Stage

Examining the statistics provided in table 15, it can be clearly shown that positive politeness
strategies have the majority percentage which is 80% with (196) instances out of the total (245)
whereas negative politeness strategies and off-record ones show minor percentages which are
13.1% and 6.9% with only (32) and (17) instances respectively. The high occurrences of positive
politeness strategies reflect the desire to fulfill one’s positive face which include claiming
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
familiarity with the addressee, minimizing the distance between S and H, and conveying that S
and H are cooperators. In other words, blamed politicians’ best option is to use intimate language
to ease the questioning process in the parliament and minimize possible FTAs in this conflictive
setting.
Table 15. Overall frequencies of the politeness strategies detected at the blame avoidance stage
No No No
% % No. % %
. . .
19 80 32 13.1 17 6.9 24 10
6 5 0
Positive politeness strategies constitute the highest proportion at the blame avoidance stage are
given a statistically detailed description for their use in each session in table 16 where it can be
noticed that the positive strategy ‘Include both S and H in the same activity’ records the highest
percentage. This can be attributed to the fact that blame takers strive to involve themselves with
their counterparts in the same unsuccessful policies and actions that have created the state of
conflict to the level of exchanging blame, using the inclusive ‘we’ and its variant ‘our’.

Include
both S Notice, Give (or Be Seek
Sessi Offer, Total
and H in attend, to ask for) optimisti agreeme
on Promise
the H reasons c nt
No.
activity
No No No No No No No
% % % % % % %
. . . . . . .
18. 2.0
1 37 4 7 3.6 3 1.5 2 1 2 1 55 28
9 3
13. 2.0 18.
2 27 5 2.5 0 0 0 0 4 1 0.5 37
8 3 8
19. 31.
3 39 6 3.1 6 3.1 3 1.5 2 1 5 2.5 61
9 1
2.0 21.
4 17 8.7 5 2.5 4 10 5.1 6 3.1 1 0.5 43
3 9
12 61. 10. 8.7 7.1 19 10
Total 20 17 16 8.1 14 9 4.5
0 3 13 3 3 6 0

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Among negative politeness strategies which show poor presence in the four British sessions as
made clear in table 17, the strategy of ‘Question, hedge’ was found to be utilized by politicians
more often than others. This explains the blame takers’ avoidance of conveying sharp opinions to
evade future retribution if they were proved wrong.
four sessions
Session Be Minimize Impersona
Question,
No. pessimis the lize S and Total
hedge
tic imposition H
No. % N % No. % No. % No %
o. .
1 4 12.5 0 0 1 3.1 0 0 5 15.
6
2 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 1 3.1 2 6.2
3 4 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 12.
5
4 5 15.6 11 34. 5 15. 0 0 21 65.
4 6 6
Total 13 40.6 11 34. 7 21. 1 3.1 32 10
4 8 0
Bald off record strategies at the blame avoidance stage have the lowest number of occurrences in
the four sessions represented only by ‘Presupposition’ as made clear in table 18. This is due to the
fact that blame takers are not afraid of performing FTAs against their opponents to save their face
at any cost in a clear, direct way.
Table 18. A detailed description of the overall frequencies of bald off-record strategies in the
four sessions
Sessio Presuppositio
n n
No. No %
.
1 7 41.2
2 2 11.7
3 2 11.7
4 6 35.3
Total 17 100

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
As regards impoliteness strategies, the data under analysis revealed a close approximation in the
statistical results between positive and negative impoliteness strategies recording (33) and (32)
instances respectively as shown in table 19. These statistical results are compatible with the
politicians' desire in this setting to undermine the personal features of their counterparts, with their
intention to take the questioning process personally to ruin their reputation and underestimate the
alleged successes they had achieved in their ministries. Moreover, blame takers want to impede
the questioning process to limit the blame makers’ freedom in scrutinizing the Government and its
Ministers.
Table 19. Overall frequencies of the impoliteness strategies detected at the blame avoidance
stage
Impolitenes Impolitene
s ss
No %
No. % No. %
.
33 50.7 32 49. 65 10
2 0
Tables 20 and 21 give a detailed statistical analysis of the occurrences of these two types of
impoliteness strategies observed in the four sessions at the blame avoidance stage. Among positive
impoliteness strategies it can be seen that the Strategy 'Disassociate from the other' constitutes the
highest proportion with 54.5% whereas among negative impoliteness strategies there is a bigger
tendency to use 'Explicitly associate the other with a negative aspect' Strategy than 'Condescend,
scorn or ridicule' strategy representing 71.8% and 28.1% respectively. The statistics computed
coincides with the fact that blame takers do their best to disassociate themselves from unfavorable
actions and policies while, at the same time, redirecting them at the blame makers to avoid blame
and accountability.
detected at the blame avoidance stage
Disassociate Seek Make the Call the
from the disagreeme other feel other Total
Sessio
other nt uncomfortable names
n No.
No
No. % No. % No. % % No. %
.
21.
1 2 6.05 3 9.1 2 6.05 0 0 7
2
15.1 36.
2 5 3 9.1 4 12.1 0 0 12
5 35

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
21.
3 6 18.2 1 3 0 0 0 0 7
2
15.1 3.0 21.
4 5 0 0 1 3 1 7
5 3 18
21. 3.0
Total 18 54.5 7 7 21.15 1 33 100
2 3
Explicitly
associate the other Condescend, Total
Session
with a negative scorn or ridicule
No.
aspect
No. % No. % No %
.
1 5 15.6 2 6.2 7 21.8
2 4 12.5 0 0 4 12.5
3 6 18.8 3 9.4 9 28.2
4 8 25 4 12.5 12 37.5
Total 23 71.9 9 28.1 32 100
Violation of Grice's maxims Strategies

A detailed statistical account of the rates and frequencies of Gricean strategies which politicians
were observed to violate at the blame avoidance stage is produced in table 22 where it can be
noticed that 'evasion' appears to be the strategy that was more frequently violated than others
having a frequency rate at 58.2%, a statistical result which is normally expected, for 'evasion' is a
technique which politicians resort to in order to cope with blame makers' questions and
interruptions which may cause possible threats to the former's face, hence they avoid giving
answers to questions.
Table 22. Overall frequencies of the violation of Grice's maxims detected at the blame
avoidance stage

Total
Evasion Fabrication Concealment Vagueness
No No. % No. % No %
No. %
. % .
32 58.2 12 21.8 9 16.4 2 3.6 55 10
0

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Table 23 provides is a detailed statistical analysis of the violation of the strategies of Gricean
maxims in each of the four sessions.
strategies detected at the blame avoidance stage

Session
Evasion Fabrication Concealment Vagueness Total
No.
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
1 6 10.9 2 3.65 2 3.65 0 0 10 18.2
2 9 16.4 3 5.5 1 1.8 0 0 13 23.7
3 6 10.9 0 0 1 1.8 1 1.8 8 14.5
4 11 20 7 12.7 5 9.1 1 1.8 24 43.6
Total 32 58.2 12 21.85 9 16.35 2 3.6 55 100
Pragma-rhetorical Strategies
Calculating the frequencies of pragma-rhetorical strategies at the blame avoidance stage
revealed that hyperbole and number-game record the highest ratios among other strategies
recognized in the data under analysis with a close approximation in their statistical results
accounting for 39.9% and 31.7% respectively as detailed in table 24. In the face of blame makers’
endless attacks, ministers are inclined to magnify their alleged successes in running their ministries
which are enhanced by statistics to add credibility to their utterances and prove themselves
blameless.
Hyperbo Number- Shifting Metapho

Sessi Litotes Irony Total
le Game Blame r
on
No No No % No No No No %
No. % % % % %
. . . . . . .
4.7 1.1 8 9.4
1 2 2.3 1 1.18 4 1 0 0 0 0
8
10. 2.35 2.3 15 17.
2 9 1 1.18 2 2 1 1.1 0 0
6 5 6
14. 2.35 1.1 31 36.
3 12 16 18.8 2 1 0 0 0 0
1 8 4
12. 8.2 1.1 31 36.
4 11 9 10.6 7 1 3 3.5 0 0
9 8 3
39. 17.6 85 10
Total 34 27 31.7 15 5 5.8 4 4.6 0 0
9 0
Iraqi Data
A detailed statistical account of the rates and frequencies of pragmatic and pragma-rhetorical
strategies which have been detected in the Iraqi corpus represented by four Parliamentary sessions
at both blame and blame avoidance stages is explicated in table 25. A close examination of these

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
statistics reveals that out of the (537) strategies used at both stages impoliteness ones occupy the
highest frequency with (341) instances making up 63.5% while politeness as well as violation of
G's maxims strategies show less frequency with (110) and (86) instances constituting 20.4% and
16% respectively out of the overall ratio. The high percentages that impoliteness strategies have
scored indicate that politicians in the Iraqi parliament prefer to take offensive standpoints at both
stages to intentionally cause damage as much as possible to their counterparts for the sake of
winning and proving themselves blameless.
As for the pragmatic strategies utilized at the blame stage, impoliteness strategies were also
found to score higher than others in rates making up 84.2% with 9.5% for politeness strategies.
This reflects a preference on the part of blamers to use direct strategies of blame which usually
create conflict between politicians to raise the possibility of damaging blamees’ face. This also
reflects the politicians’ desire to violate the social norms and values that are expected to be
followed by each individual for the sake of proving their standpoints. Only (17) instances
representing the violation of Gricean’s maxims strategies at the blame stage were spotted in the
data analyzed forming 6.2% of the strategies used at this stage due to both blamers and blamee's
realization of the importance of the critical issues being discussed where there is no room for any
deception or manipulation.
Regarding the strategies used at the blame avoidance stage, the data under analysis reveal that
impoliteness strategies represent (111) instances making up again the highest rate of frequency
42.04% in comparison with (84) instances of politeness strategies and (69) instances which
represent the violation of Gricean maxims strategies forming only 31.8% and 26.1% respectively.
This demonstrates that politicians in the Iraqi parliament always tend to use impoliteness strategies
to serve one of two purposes: to defend themselves against possible blame acts that may result in
the loss of their positions and ruin their reputation, or attack other politicians to prove themselves
blameless and shift the blame towards some other individual or authority. Furthermore, it reveals
that politicians do not always obey the Rules of Procedures of the Parliament and the Iraqi
Constitution.
Table 25. Overall frequencies of pragmatic strategies detected at the blame and blame
avoidance stages in Iraqi sessions
Violation of G's
Politeness Impoliteness
Stage Maxims Total
Strategies Strategies
Strategies
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Blame Stage 26 9.5 230 84.2 17 6.2 273 100
Blame Avoidance
84 31.8 111 42.04 69 26.1 264 100
Stage
Total 110 20.4 341 63.5 86 16 537 100
As for the pragma-rhetorical strategies whose frequencies of occurrence are presented in table 26,
the statistics computed reveals that they are more frequently utilized at the blame avoidance stage
than they are at the blame stage reaching 64.5% compared with 35.5% of their occurrence at the
blame stage. This suggests that politicians at the blame avoidance stage are more inclined to exploit

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
hyperbole, number-game, shifting, litotes, metaphor, and irony to have a more persuasive effect
on their opponents, to persuade them into believing that they are irresponsible of wrong decisions
which may have been made and that blame is baseless or, rather, it should be directed towards
some other authority or individual.
Table 26. Overall frequencies of pragma-rhetorical strategies detected at the blame and blame
avoidance stages in British sessions
Pragma Rhetorical
Stage Strategies
No. %
Blame Stage 83 35.5
Blame Avoidance 151 64.5
Stage
Total 234 100
Blame Stage
Table 27 shows that the total number of politeness strategies at the blame stage is (26) among
which positive strategies comprise the highest proportion with (18) instances making up 69.2% in
the four sessions. Negative strategies come in the second place with (8) instances representing
30.8%. The analysis of the data shows that bald off-record strategies were not employed at all. The
high percentage of positive politeness shows that politicians have the desire to build up solidarity
and cooperation and appraise positively and publicly their interlocutors to avoid conflict, as Brown
and Levinson (1987, p. 70) state “Positive politeness is oriented toward the positive face of H, the
positive self-image that he claims for himself”.
Table 27. Overall frequencies of the politeness strategies detected at the blame stage
No No No
% % No. % %
. . .
18 69.2 8 30.8 0 0 26 10
0
The beginning is with positive politeness strategies whose frequencies and percentages are detailed
in table 28.

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Table 28. A detailed description of the overall frequencies of positive politeness strategies detected
in the four sessions

Include both S Total
Session Notice, attend, to Give (or ask
and H in the
No. H for) reasons
activity
No. % No. % No. % No. %
1 3 16.7 2 11.1 2 11.1 7 38.9
2 0 0 2 11.1 0 0 2 11.1
3 5 27.8 0 0 0 0 5 27.8
4 2 11.1 0 0 2 11.1 4 22.2
Total 10 55.6 4 22.2 4 22.2 18 100
It can be noticed that the positive politeness strategy ‘Include both S and H in the same activity’
is far more frequently used than Strategies ‘Give (or ask for) reasons’ and ‘Notice, attend, to H
(his interests, wants, needs, goods)’ having the frequency of 55.6%, 22.2% and 22.2% respectively.
This amounts to the cooperative effect politicians want to establish in questioning their opponents
to minimize FTA and help them get answers without damaging their face.
Negative politeness strategies come in the second place with (8) instances as shown in table 29
where the ‘Minimize the imposition’ Strategy scores the highest percentage with 75% in
comparison with the Strategies ‘Question, hedge’ and ‘Impersonalize S and H’ having the lower
percentages of 12.5% each. This is because politicians want to mitigate the impact of FTAs that
may be found in their utterances as well as the imposition on H's freedom. The analysis of the data
shows that the negative politeness strategy ‘Be pessimistic’ was not used at all.
four sessions

Session Minimize
Question, Impersonali Be
No. the Total
hedge ze S and H pessimistic
imposition
No. % No. % No. % No. % No %
.
1 3 37.5 1 12.5 0 0 0 0 4 50
2 1 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12.5
3 1 12.5 0 0 1 12.5 0 0 2 25
4 1 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12.5
Total 6 75 1 12.5 1 12.5 0 0 8 100

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
As has already been mentioned, no instances of bald off-record strategies have been spotted in the
four Iraqi sessions. The reason behind the zero occurrence of this type of politeness strategies can
possibly be attributed to the fact that politicians do not want their utterances to implicate a criticism
(Brown & Levinson, 1987).
The statistical analysis of impoliteness strategies with total (230) reveals a clear disparity in the
results between positive strategies which constitute (145) instances typifying 63%, with (85)
occurrences of negative strategies that comprise 37%. The high percentage of positive impoliteness
strategies conveys the politicians’ intention to damage the addressees’ positive face wants. More
specifically, it was scored more by those politicians who scrutinize government officeholders to
ruin their reputation and make them lose their power.
Table 30. Overall frequencies of the impoliteness strategies detected at the blame stage
Impolitenes Impolitene
s ss
No No %
No. % %
. .
145 63 85 37 23 10
0 0
Examining the occurrence of positive impoliteness
strategies, the findings in table 31 show clearly that there is more preference for making the other
feel uncomfortable than disassociating them from the other, seeking disagreement, and calling the
other names, with 89%, 9.7%, and 1.4% respectively.
Sessi Make the other Seek Disassociat Call the
on feel disagreemen e from the other Total
No. uncomfortable t other names
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
32 22.1 10 6.9 1 0.7 0 0 43 29.
1
7
28 19.3 2 1.4 1 0.7 0 0 31 21.
2
4
39 26.9 1 0.7 0 0 0 0 40 27.
3
6
30 20.7 1 0.7 0 0 0 0 31 21.
4
4
Total 129 89 14 9.7 2 1.4 0 0 145 100

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Concerning the negative impoliteness strategies whose percentages of occurrence in the four
sessions are detailed in table 32, the results show that the Strategy ‘Explicitly associate the other
with a negative aspect’ is by far the most frequently used strategy with 87% in comparison with
the strategy ‘Condescend, scorn or ridicule’ which records 13% only. This is mainly because
politicians want to damage the reputation of their counterparts permanently by associating them
with negative acts that will always be remembered when their names come to the fore instead of
ridiculing or scorning them for a temporary effect.

Explicitly associate Condescend,
Session
the other with a scorn or Total
No.
negative aspect ridicule
No. % No. % No. %
Session 23 27 5 5.9 28 32.9
1
Session 16 18.8 3 3.5 19 22.3
2
Session 16 18.8 1 1.2 17 20
3
Session 19 22.4 2 2.4 21 24.8
4
Total 74 87 11 13 85 100

As for the violation of Grice's maxims strategies, table 33 makes clear that fabrication is far
more frequently used than vagueness with (16) instances for the former vs one instance only for
the latter making up 94.1% and 5.9% respectively. This reflects the desire of blame makers to
deviate from the truth to the extent of shaping others’ thoughts as they please by creating “distorted
versions of the sensitive information” (McCornack, 1992, p. 9).
Table 33. Overall frequencies of the violation of Grice's maxims detected at the blame stage
Violation of Grice's
Maxims Strategies Total
Fabrication Vagueness
No %
No. %
No. % .
The incidence of these 16 94.1 1 5.9 17 10 two strategies in the four
sessions is detailed in 0 table 34.

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
strategies detected at the blame stage

Strategies
Session Total
No. Fabrication Vagueness
No. % No. % No. %
1 2 11.8 1 5.9 3 17.7
2 6 35.2 0 0 6 35.2
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 8 47.1 0 0 8 47.1
Total 16 94.1 1 5.9 17 100
The statistics with regard to the pragma-rhetorical strategies identified in the Iraqi transcripts
at the blame stage shows that 'number-game' surpasses the other strategies with 73.5% as made
clear in table 35. The extensive use of the 'number-game' Strategy at the blame stage reflects the
blame makers’ intention to add credibility to their statements and, hence, support their blame acts
against their counterparts.
Number- Total
Sessi Hyperbole Metaphor Litotes Irony
Game
on
No No. %
No. No. % No. % No. % % No. %
.
1 12 14.5 10 12 2 2.4 4 4.8 1 1.2 29 34.9
2 5 6 2 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8.4
3 31 37.3 0 0 0 0 1 1.2 0 0 32 38.5
4 13 15.7 2 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 18.1
Total 61 73.5 14 16.8 2 2.4 5 6 1 1.2 83 100

Among politeness strategies used at the blame avoidance stage table 36 shows that positive
politeness strategies come in the first place with (57) instances accounting for 67.8%. The next on
line is negative politeness strategies which are represented by (17) instances only forming 20.2%.
Bald off-record strategies which are embodies in (10) instances stand third in line comprising
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
11.9%. The high percentage of positive politeness strategies explains the politician’s desire to
establish harmony with his/her audience to achieve certain goals by claiming common ground with
H, conveying that S and H are in cooperation, and fulfilling H’s wants (Pastor, 2001).
Table 36. Overall frequencies of the politeness strategies detected at the blame avoidance stage
No No No
% % No. % %
. . .
57 67.8 17 20.2 10 11.9 84 10
0
As for positive politeness strategies, comparing the occurrences of these strategies in the four Iraqi
parliamentary sessions in table 37 shows clearly that Strategies ‘Give (or ask for) reasons’ and
‘Seek Agreement’ which have approximate percentages of occurrence recording 40.3% and 38.5
respectively are used far more often than others utilized at the blame avoidance stage. Giving
reasons via the Strategy ‘Give (or ask for) reasons’ and satisfying H’s desire to be right by raising
safe topics through the use of the Strategy ‘Seek Agreement’ can help politicians create
harmonious environment with their counterparts to minimize their FTAs.

Include
Give (or Seek Both S Notice, Be
Sessi Offer, Total
ask for) Agreem and H in attend, Optimis
on promise
reasons ent the same to H tic
No.
activity
No % No % No % N % No % No % No. %
. . . o. . .
1 5 8.8 8 14 6 10.5 1 1.7 0 0 0 0 20 35
7 12. 3 5.2 1 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 19.
2
3 3
3 5.2 2 3.5 1 1.7 1 1.7 0 0 0 0 7 12.
3
2
8 14 9 15. 1 1.7 1 1.7 0 0 0 0 19 33.
4
8 3
23 40. 22 38. 9 15.7 3 5.2 0 0 0 0 57 100
Total
3 5
As regards negative politeness strategies whose distribution in the four Iraqi sessions at the blame
avoidance stage is detailed in table 38, it can be observed that two strategies were found to be used
more often than others: ‘Question, hedge’ which is by far the most frequently used strategy with
64.7%, next in order is ‘Impersonalize S and H’ strategy with (5) instances making up 29.4%. The
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
extensive use of (Question, hedge) Strategy explains the politicians’ desire to present tentative
opinions to decrease the possible damage to their reputation in the future if they were proven
wrong.
four sessions
Minimize
Question Impersonali Be Total
the
Sessio , hedge ze S and H pessimistic
imposition
n No.
No % No. % No. % No % No. %
. .
1 1 5.9 2 11.8 0 0 0 0 3 17.7
2 2 11. 3 17.5 1 5.9 0 0 6 35.2
8
3 2 11. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11.8
8
4 6 35. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 35.2
2
Total 11 64. 5 29.3 1 5.9 0 0 17 100
7
The only bald off-record strategy detected at the blame avoidance stage is ‘presupposition’ whose
distribution in the four sessions is detailed in table 39. As has already been mentioned, this sub-
strategy has the lowest number of occurrences among positive politeness strategies.
Table 39. A detailed description of the overall frequencies of bald off-record strategies in the
four sessions
Presupposit
Sessio ion
n No. No %
.
1 3 30
2 1 10
3 3 30
4 3 30
Total 10 100
Examining the frequency of occurrence of impoliteness strategies at the blame avoidance stage in
table 40 shows clearly that positive impoliteness strategies record a higher utilization rate than
negative ones having frequency rates which stand at 84.6% and 15.3% respectively. The reason
behind the high occurrence of positive impoliteness strategies can possibly be attributed to the fact

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
that blame takers’ best strategy is to target their counterparts’ personal characters and political
beliefs to prove their incompetency as MP to diffuse the blame acts against them.
Table 40. Overall frequencies of the impoliteness strategies detected at the blame avoidance
stage
Impoliteness Impoliteness
No No %
No. % %
. .
94 84.6 17 15.3 11 100
1
Concerning positive impoliteness strategies whose rates and frequencies are statistically described
in table 41, ‘seek disagreement’ Strategy of which (71) instances were detected constitutes the
highest proportion which amounts to 75.5% as compared with those instances of the other
strategies detected at this stage. This amounts to the confrontational nature of Iraqi Question Time
sessions where blame takers express quite publicly their rejection of the beliefs and opinions of
their counterparts to cause severe damage.
Seek Make the other Disassociate

Call the
disagreem feel from the Total
Sessi other names
ent uncomfortable other
on
No. No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
14 14. 3 3.2 6 6.4 0 0 23 24.5

1
9
19 20. 4 4.3 0 0 0 0 23 24.5

2
2
13 13. 1 1.06 1 1.06 0 0 15 15.9

3
8
25 26. 7 7.4 1 1.06 0 0 33 35.0

4
6 6
71 75. 15 15.96 8 8.52 0 0 94 100

Total
5

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
In table 42 the findings about the occurrence of negative impoliteness strategies reveal clearly that
Strategy ‘condescend, scorn or ridicule’ is embodied in (17) instances accounting for 100%
whereas no instances for Strategy ‘explicitly associate the other with a negative aspect’ were
detected in the selected texts. This can be attributed to the fact that blame takers (Ministers) want
to emphasize their power and ridicule the blame acts of their opponents to belittle them as much
as possible and leave no space for blame to be attributed. In other words, they strive to emphasize
their honesty and competency in running their Ministries and make fun of the questioners to
highlight their ignorance of the actions and policies of the Government and its facilities.
Explicitly
Condescend,
associate the other
scorn or Total
Session with a negative
ridicule
No. aspect
No. % No. % No %
.
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 11.7 0 0 2 11.
3
7
15 88.2 0 0 15 88.
4
2
17 100 0 0 17 10
Total
0
Violation of G rice's maxims Strategies

As made clear in table 43, a comparison of the frequency rates of Gricean strategies which
politicians seemed to ignore at the blame avoidance stage reveals the following results: evasion
which amounts to 68.1% occupies a higher occurrence than fabrication, concealment, and
vagueness which constitute 21.7%, 8.6%, and 1.4% respectively. This is a normal result in such
settings because the blame takers’ priority is to prevent MPs from accessing critical information
they have to save their reputation and stay in their positions as long as they can.

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Table 43. Overall frequencies of the violation of Grice's maxims detected at the blame
avoidance stage
Fabricatio Concealmen Vagueness Total
Evasion
n t
No No. % No. % No %
No. %
. % .
47 68.1 15 21.7 6 8.6 1 1.4 69 10
0
A detailed statistical analysis of how these strategies were employed by blame takers is provided
in table 44.
strategies detected at the blame avoidance stage

Evasion Fabricati Concealme Vaguen Total
Session
on nt ess
No.
No. % No % No % N % No. %
. . o.
1 3 4.3 5 7.2 1 1.4 0 0 9 12.
9
2 10 14.5 3 4.3 1 1.4 0 0 14 20.
2
3 21 30.4 4 5.8 3 4.3 1 1.4 29 41.
9
4 13 18.8 3 4.3 1 1.4 0 0 17 24.
5
Total 47 68 15 21. 6 8.5 1 1.4 69 100
6
A quantitative analysis of pragma-rhetorical strategies is presented in table 45 where we can
observe that there is a tendency on the part of blame takers to use 'shifting blame' which
constitutes 43.04% far more often than 'litotes', 'number-game', and 'hyperbole' with a disparity
in the use of these strategies whose percentages of occurrence are 29.1%, 16.5%, and 9.9%
respectively. 'Metaphor' has the lowest percentage of occurrence 1.3% with no instances of irony
spotted in the data analyzed. This shows the desire of blame takers to address things directly
while trying to shift the responsibility of an unfavorable decision to a scapegoat to avoid being
held blameworthy. In other words, they redirect blame to previous or current officeholders’
policies and actions which has allegedly resulted in the current failures.

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327

Shifting Number- Hyperbo Metapho

Litotes Irony Total
Sessio Blame game le r
n No. No No. % No No No No %
No. % % % % %
. . . . .
11 7.3 33 21.
1 9 5.9 9 5.9 2 1.3 2 1.3 0 0
8
3 2 33 21.
2 15 9.9 9 5.9 6 4 0 0 0 0
8
2 1.3 32 21.
3 17 11.2 9 5.9 4 2.6 0 0 0 0
1
11. 9 5.9 53 35.
4 24 15.9 17 3 2 0 0 0 0
2 6 1
29. 16. 15 10
Total 65 43 44 25 15 9.9 2 1.3 0 0
1 5 1 0
Comparing British and Iraqi Data

At the pragmatic level, the statistical analysis of the British and Iraqi corpora which encompass
four Parliamentary Question sessions each shows the following rates and frequencies of the
strategies utilized in the parliamentary setting as illustrated in table 46. The results reveal a great
disparity between British and Iraqi politicians in terms of using politeness and impoliteness
strategies at both stages. British politicians tend to use more politeness strategies than Iraqi ones
with 56.4% and 20.5%, respectively. British politicians are expected to obey the rules of Erskine
May’s (1844) Treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament. However, due
to the aggressive nature of Question Time sessions, MPs utilize politeness strategies to save their
opponents’ face while performing FTAs, but abide by the rules of the British Parliament at the
same time. On the other hand, Iraqi parliamentarians perform rather differently by using
impoliteness strategies more often than British parliamentarians do with 63.5% and 30.1%
respectively. This reveals their desire to win arguments, answer questions, and ruin others’
reputation at any cost by violating the Rules of Procedure of the Iraqi Council of Representatives
set in 2006. As for violations of Gricean maxims, British and Iraqi politicians perform quite
similarly with 13.5% and 16% respectively.
Table 46. A comparison of British and Iraqi data in terms of pragmatic strategies used at the
blame and blame avoidance stages
Violation of
Type of Politeness Impolitenes
G's Maxims Total
Data Strategies s Strategies
Strategies
No. % No. % No. % No. %

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
56.
British 350 187 30.1 84 13.5 608 100
4
20.
Iraqi 110 341 63.5 86 16 537 100
5
39. 114
Total 460 528 45.5 170 14.7 100
7 5
Concerning the pragma-rhetorical strategies, table 47 reveals that Iraqi politicians tend to use them
more often than British politicians do for the sake of persuasion and manipulation to change the
addressee’s attitudes and feelings towards a particular individual or topic in both defensive and
offensive positions (Mihas, 2005).
Table 47. A comparison of British and Iraq data in terms of pragma-rhetorical strategies used at
the blame and blame avoidance stage
Pragma Rhetorical
Type of Data Strategies
No. %
British 156 40
Iraqi 234 60
Total 390 100
Blame Stage
As illustrated in table 48, impoliteness strategies achieve the first place among other kinds of
pragmatic strategies and this is evident through the high percentage of their occurrences 84.2%
and 50.4% in the Iraqi and British settings respectively. The British MPs attempted to have a
balance between attacking the PM and respecting the rules of the House of Commons at the same
time by employing both politeness and impoliteness strategies with almost equal percentages,
43.4% and 50.4% respectively. This is mainly because direct FTAs are not acceptable and must
be withdrawn or rephrased. On the other hand, Iraqi MPs have utilized impoliteness strategies
84.2% more often than politeness strategies 9.5% to convey their power and desire to defeat their
counterparts at any cost, ignoring the Rules of Procedures of the Iraqi Parliament as well as the
Speaker of the Council of Representatives.
blame stage
Violation of
G's Maxims Total
Strategies
No. % No. % No. % No. %
43.
British 105 122 50.4 15 6.2 242 100
4
Iraqi 26 9.5 230 84.2 17 6.2 273 100

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
25.
Total 131 352 68.3 32 6.2 515 100
4
The findings in table 49 reveal that positive politeness strategies prevail over other politeness
strategies in British and Iraqi Parliaments with 22.7% and 6.6% to minimize the threat to H’s
positive face, i.e., wants, actions, values of the addressee should be desirable and approved.
Positive and negative impoliteness strategies have scored approximate percentages in the British
setting accounting for 26% and 24.4% respectively, since British MPs want to ruin the political
status of their opponents. On the other hand, Iraqi MPs primarily employ positive impoliteness
strategies more often than negative ones recording 53.1% and 31.1% respectively to emphasize
the incompetency and lack of personal features of their counterparts who are expected to run high
positions in the Government. It is also found that British and Iraqi MPs are inclined to create
fabricated statements in the minds of the other politicians to avoid blame as these cannot be
detected easily in the questioning process. In the British and Iraqi Parliaments, fabrication has
scored 5.8% and 5.9% respectively, while vagueness has only hit 0.4% for each.
Table 49. A comparison of British and Iraqi data in terms of the sub-pragmatic strategies used at
the blame stage
Violation of G's
Impoliteness
Politeness Strategies Maxims
Strategies
Strategies
Negative Politeness
Positive Politeness
Bald off-Record
Type
Impoliteness
Impoliteness
Fabrication
Vagueness
Total
Negative
Positive
of
Data
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

British 55 22.7 31 12.8 19 7.9 63 26 59 24.4 14 5.8 1 0.4 242 100
Iraqi 18 6.6 8 2.9 0 0 145 53.1 85 31.1 16 5.9 1 0.4 273 100
Total 73 14.2 39 7.6 19 3.7 208 40.3 144 28 30 5.8 2 0.4 515 100
Pertaining to the pragma-rhetorical strategies at the blame stage, table 50 shows that British
politicians utilize two main strategies: 'number-game' and 'hyperbole' which amount to 47.9% and
42.3% respectively. Likewise, Iraqi politicians seem to exploit 'number-game' and 'hyperbole' as
their main pragma-rhetorical strategies, scoring 73.5% and 16.9% respectively. As mentioned by
Leech (1983), hyperbole is a rhetorical pragmatic strategy which magnifies some real state of
affairs. As for number-game, Dijk (2000) emphasizes the point that politicians use statistics and
large numbers to add credibility to their utterances and doubt to those of others. As such, these two
strategies add more damaging effect to the addressee’s political status and help to prove them
blameworthy.

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Table 50. A comparison of British and Iraqi data in terms of the various pragma-rhetorical
strategies used at the blame stage
Number- Hyperbol Metapho

Type Litotes Irony Total
Game e r
of
Data No No No No. %
No. % % No. % % %
. . .
Britis 71 10
34 47.9 30 42.3 3 4.2 4 5.6 0 0
h 0
83 10
Iraqi 61 73.5 14 16.9 5 6 2 2.4 1 1.2
0
154 10
Total 95 41.7 44 28.6 8 5.1 6 3.9 1 0.6
0

Table 51 reveals some differences between British and Iraqi politicians in the employment of
pragmatic strategies at the blame avoidance stage. British politicians appear to take an indirect
approach in facing blame attacks against them through the use of politeness strategies which have
hit the highest percentage of 65%, while impoliteness strategies and the strategies of violating
Gricean maxims have only scored 20.4% and 14.6% respectively. On the other hand, Iraqi
politicians were clearly dependent on impoliteness strategies without showing any abidance by the
rules and procedures of the parliament. This can be noticed through the highest percentage
impoliteness strategies have scored which amount to 42%, while politeness strategies and the
strategies of violating Gricean maxims have hit lower percentages: 31.8% and 26.1% respectively.
blame avoidance stage
Violation of
G's Maxims Total
Strategies
No. % No. % No. % No. %
British 245 65 77 20.4 55 14.6 377 100
31.
Iraqi 84 111 42 69 26.1 264 100
8
51.
Total 329 188 29.3 124 19.3 641 100
3
In table 52, British and Iraqi politicians seem to perform similarly as regards politeness strategies
and the strategies of violating Gricean maxims. As for politeness strategies, positive ones have
scored the highest percentages, which amount to 53.7% and 21.6% in the British and Iraqi settings

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
respectively, and this reflects the cooperative effect these politicians strive to establish with their
counterparts to ease the questioning process and underestimate the damage caused by the blame
attacks. British and Iraqi politicians have also shown a similar tendency to employ the strategy of
evasion to avoid blame by talking about irrelevant issues or claiming their incompetence in
answering the questions of the MPs. It is clear in the percentages this strategy has achieved in the
British and Iraqi Parliaments: 8.7% and 17.8% respectively. Concerning British Parliamentarians'
use of impoliteness strategies, positive and negative ones have hit similar percentages (9% and
8.7%) to convey their desire to express their direct refusal of the attributed blame acts against them
and make the blame makers follow their own opinions. Iraqi politicians performed differently by
exploiting the positive impoliteness strategies more often than the negative ones to emphasize their
disagreement and enmity towards their counterparts; therefore, positive impoliteness strategies
have scored higher than negative ones: 35.6% and 6.4% respectively.
Table 52. A comparison of British and Iraqi data in terms of the sub-pragmatic strategies used at
the blame avoidance stage
Politeness Impoliteness Violation of G's

Strategies Strategies Maxims Strategies
Negative Impoliteness
Positive Impoliteness
Negative Politeness
Positive Politeness
Bald off-Record
Concealment
Fabrication
Vagueness
Type
Evasion
of
Data
Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
British196 53.7 32 8.7 17 4.7 33 9 32 8.7 32 8.7 12 3.3 9 2.5 2 0.5 366 100
Iraqi 57 21.6 17 6.4 10 3.8 94 35.6 17 6.4 47 17.8 15 5.7 6 2.3 1 0.4 264 100
Total 253 40.3 49 7.8 27 4.3 12720.1 49 7.8 79 12.6 27 4.3 15 2.4 3 0.4 630 100
Table 53 reveals the reliance of British politicians on the pragma-rhetorical strategies of
'hyperbole' and 'number-game' at the blame avoidance stage to achieve positive opinions,
emotions, and attitudes by their utterances, such as complimenting, congratulating, praising,
expressing sympathy, approving, and delighting, , as well as enhance their credibility through the
use of numbers. (Cano, 2006). This is evident in the high percentages these strategies have scored:
40% and 31.8% respectively. On the other hand, Iraqi politicians were inclined to utilize the
strategies of shifting blame and litotes (43% and 29.1% respectively) to redirect blame towards
other current or previous individuals or authorities in the Government for the unfavorable decisions
they had made, i.e., they shift blame to them. If their attempt to redirect blame failed, they would
choose to minimize it to cause a little damage to their public face to make sure they stay in power.
Table 53. A comparison of British and Iraqi data in terms of the various pragma-rhetorical
strategies used at the blame avoidance stage

www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Shifting Number-
Type Hyperbole Litotes Metaphor Irony Total
Blame Game
of
No No No No No No No %
Data % % % % % %
. . . . . . .
Britis 17. 31. 85 10
15 27 34 40 5 5.9 4 4.7 0 0
h 6 8 0
16. 29. 15 10
Iraqi 65 43 25 15 9.9 44 2 1.3 0 0
6 1 1 0
33. 20. 20. 23 10
Total 80 52 22 49 49 6 2.5 0 0
8 7 7 6 0
Discussion
The main area of investigation of this study was to examine the pragmatics of political blame in
the parliamentary setting, and the similarities and/or differences in terms of the pragmatic and
pragma-rhetorical strategies used by British and Iraqi politicians when they exchange blame in
both offensive and defensive situations. In order to test the hypotheses, the researchers adopted the
mixed approach of qualitative and quantitative analyses.
The findings of the analysis of the data exemplified in the situations above show that political
blame is processed according to two stages: blame and blame avoidance. In addition, it is indicated
that each stage encompasses pragmatic and pragma-rhetorical strategies. In Iraqi Parliament,
impoliteness strategies prevailed over strategies at both stages (see table 25). In British Parliament,
impoliteness strategies were dominant at the blame stage while politeness strategies scored the
highest at the blame avoidance stage (see table 3).
The reliance of Iraqi politicians on impoliteness strategies at both stages explains the aggressive
nature of Iraqi question sessions where politicians strive to win at all costs. On the other hand,
British politicians took defensive positions at the blame avoidance stage to diffuse attacks triggered
at the blame stage.
Conclusions
In its endeavor to investigate the pragmatic structure of which blame is composed, the study
has revealed the following:
- The model developed for analyzing the data proved to be a workable and successful tool to
achieve the aims of the present study.
- Both Iraqi and British parliaments utilize certain pragmatic and pragma-rhetorical strategies
either to defend themselves against damaging blame acts or to damage others’ images and prove
them blameworthy.
- One major difference observed between British and Iraqi Parliamentarians is in terms of
indirectness and directness achieved by means of politeness and impoliteness strategies where it
has been found that British politicians show an inclination to be indirect using politeness strategies
at both blame and blame avoidance stages in comparison with Iraqi politicians where the statistical
analysis has shown that they tend to be impolite through their frequent use of impoliteness
strategies at both stages.
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
- British and Iraqi blame makers have performed similarly by fabricating their statements and
violating the maxim of quality to deceive other politicians. Moreover, both British and Iraqi blame
takers tend to violate the maxim of relevance more often than the other maxims through the
strategy of evasion to avoid blame.
- Concerning pragma-rhetorical strategies, both British and Iraqi blame makers at the blame stage
have exploited the pragma-rhetorical strategy of number-game to support their standpoints with
statistics to enhance their credibility. As for the blame avoidance stage, British blame takers have
utilized hyperbole as their main pragma-rhetorical strategy whereas Iraqi blame takers have
utilized shifting blame strategy.
Recommendations
According to the conclusions, some suggestions are proposed:
1. Politicians are advised to avoid using impoliteness strategies for offensive or defensive
purposes as they increase the possibility of conflict and result in numerous losses.
2. Strategic maneuvring is another important area that requires attention in analysing a conflictive
setting like the parliament.
3. Speech acts is another worth subject of study in the parliamentary setting.
4. Manipulation and deception are expected to be intrinsic in parliaments where elected
representatives (Members of Parliament), who are closer to the audience than ever, strive to
deploy for the sake of winning. Accordingly, a pragma-rhetorical study of these two subjects
would fill this gap.
About the Authors:

Ammar Ghalib Saleem received his BA in 2015 from the College of Languages at the University
of Baghdad. He has been teaching English as a foreign language since 2015. He is an MA student
in the English Language. He has completed the thesis “A Pragma-Rhetorical Study of the
Proceedings of Question Time Held in the British and Iraqi Parliaments.”
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4559-8301
Dr. Rihab Abduljaleel Saeed (Ph.D.) received her Ph.D. from the College of Arts, University of
Baghdad in 2006 with a dissertation on Gricean maxims of conversational implicature. Her fields
of research are pragmatics and stylistics. She is an assistant professor at the department of
English/College of Languages and has been teaching pragmatics, semantics, and many other MA
courses since 2008. ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8388-7038
References
Alasko, C. (2011). Beyond Blame: Freeing Yourself from the Most Toxic Form of Emotional
Bullsh*t. New York: Tarcher/Penguin.
Archer, D., Aijmer, K. & Wichmann, A. (2012). Pragmatics: An Advanced Resource Book for
Students. London: Routledge.
Bach, K. (n.d.). Pragmatics and the Philosophy of Language. The Handbook of Pragmatics, 463–
487. doi: 10.1002/9780470756959.ch21
Bates, S., Kerr, P., Byrne, C., & Stanley, L. (2012). Questions to the Prime Minister: A
comparative study of PMQs from Thatcher to Cameron. Parliamentary Affairs, 67(2), 253-
280.
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Bayley, P. (2004). The whys and wherefores of analyzing parliamentary discourse. Cross-
Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and
Culture, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.01bay
Bevan, S., & John, P. (2015). Policy Representation by Party Leaders and Followers: What
Drives UK Prime Minister's Questions? Government and Opposition, 51(1), 59–83.
Bitzer, L. F. (1968). Philosophy and Rhetoric. The Rhetorical Situation, 1, 1-14.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bull, P., & Wells, P. (2012). Adversarial discourse in Prime Minister's Questions. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 30–48.
Cano Mora, L. (2006). "How to Make a Mountain out of a Molehill": A Corpus Based Pragmatic
and Conversational Analysis Study of Hyperbole in Interaction. (Unpublished Doctoral
Thesis). Valencia: University of Valencia Press.
Culpeper, J. (1996) Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349–
367.
Dattner, B. (2011). Credit and Blame at Work: How Better Assessment Can Improve Individual,
Team and Organizational Success. New York: Free Press.
Dijk, T. A. V. (2008). Contextualization in Parliamentary Discourse: Aznar, Iraq and the
Pragmatics of Lying. Discourse and Power, 237–261.
Dijk, V. (2000). Parliamentary Discourse. Racism at the Top. Parliamentary Discourses on
Ethnic Issues in Six European States, 45–78.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Research Approaches in Applied Linguistics (2nd ed). Oxford Handbooks
Online.
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Ekman, P. (2009). Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage. New
York: Norton.
Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging. New Approaches to Hedging,
15-34.
Foley, W. A. (1997) Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Garcia, D. P. M. (2001). Pragmatics and the 2000 Us elections: issues of politeness and power
in political campaign debates. Valencia: Lengua Inglesa, Universitat de València.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-face Behavior. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Goffman, E. (1972). On Face-Work: an Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.
Communication in Face-to-Face Interaction, 319–346.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. Speech Acts. doi: 10.1163/9789004368811_003
Gupta, S., Sakamoto, K. & Ortony, A. (2012). Telling it like it isn't: A comprehensive approach
to analyzing verbal deception. In F. Paglieri, L. Tummolini, R. Falcone & M. Micell (eds.),
The goals of cognition: Festschrift for Cristiano Castelfranchi (pp. 579-610). London:
College Publications.
Hancock, B. (1998). An introduction to Qualitative research. UK: Trent Focus Group.
Hansson, S. (2015). Discursive strategies of blame avoidance in government: A framework for
analysis, Discourse & Society, 26, 297-322.
Hood, C. (2011). The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and Self-Preservation in Government.
Oxford: Princeton University Press.
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
Ilie, C. (Ed.).(2010). European Parliaments under Scrutiny: Discourse Strategies and

Interaction Practices. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ilie, C. (2015). Parliamentary Discourse. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie & T. Sandel (eds.), International
Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 1113-1128). Boston: Wiley
Blackwell.
Ilie, C. (2017). Parliamentary Debates. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics.
Taylor and Francis.
Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, L. (2012). Parliamentary Discourses across Cultures: Interdisciplinary
Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Coe, J., & Kelly, R. (2009). Prime Minister's Questions. London: House of Commons Library.
Iraq Constitution (2005).Retrieved from
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Iraq_2005.pdf
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper & Row.
Larrazabal, J. M. and Korta, K. (2002). Pragmatics and Rhetoric for Discourse Analysis: Some
conceptual remarks. Language and Information: The University of the Basque Country, 1-
10.
Leech, G. (1980). Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Leech, G. (2005). Politeness: Is there an East-West divide. Journal of Foreign Languages, 6, 1-
30.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
May, E. (1844) A Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament.
London: Charles Knight & Co.
McCornack, S. (1992) Information Manipulation Theory. Communication Monographs, 59, 1-
16.
McQuarrie, E. F. & D. G. Mick (1996). Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language, Journal
of Consumer Research, 22, 424-438.
Mihas, E. (2005). Non-Literal Language in Political Discourse. LSO Working Papers in
Linguistics 5: Proceedings of WIGL 2005: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 124-39.
Mullany, L., & Stockwell, P. (2010). Introducing English Language: A Resource Book for
Students. Nottingham: Routledge.
Sheridan, C. G. (2013). Politeness in Conflict: Identity Management and Politeness Strategies
Used During a Conflict (M.A. Thesis). University of Michigan.
Tilly, C. (2008). Credit and Blame. Princeton, NJ and Woodstock: Princeton University Press.
UK Parliament (n.d.). The Official Report of all Parliamentary Debates. Retrieved from
https://hansard.parliament.uk
Wiberg, M. (1995). Parliamentary Questioning: Control by Communication? In M. Wiberg (ed.),
Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe (pp. 179-222). New York: St Martin’s
Press.
Williams, C. (2007). Research methods. Journal of Business and Economics, 5(2), 65-72.
Wodak, R. (2006). Blaming and Denying: Pragmatics. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of
Language and Linguistics, (2nd ed, Vol. 2, pp. 59-64). Oxford: Elsevier.
Zhang, G. (2011). Elasticity of vague language. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8, 571-599.
‫ دراسة تشريعية‬: ‫ االختصاص الرقابي لمجلس النواب في توجيه األسئلة البرلمانية‬.)2010( .‫ محمد عباس محسن‬.‫ د‬.‫م‬
.129-90 .‫ ص‬، 6 .‫ ع‬،2 .‫مجلة الكوفة للعلوم القانونية و السياسية مج‬. ‫مقارنة‬
www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327

Pragmatics of Political Blame in British and Iraqi Parliaments Ammar Ghalib Saleem

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pragmatics of Political Blame in British and Iraqi Parliaments Ammar Ghalib Saleem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 11. Number1 March 2020 Pp.

Pragmatics of Political Blame in British and Iraqi Parliaments

Rihab Abduljaleel Saeed Alattar

Arab World English Journal 332

Parliamentary questioning is a subgenre of parliamentary discourse. It does not only scrutinize

Arab World English Journal 333

Figure 1. Brown and Levinson's (1987, p. 60) scheme of politeness strategies

Violating Quantity Maxim

Violating Quality Maxim

Culpeper’s (1996) Model of Impoliteness

Arab World English Journal 337

Do not say what you believe to be false.

Violating Grice's maxims results in four strategies which include:

Pragmatics of Blame and Blame Avoidance

Arab World English Journal 341

Table 1. Description of British data

Table 2. Description of Iraqi data

Arab World English Journal 342

The Analytical Model

Figure 2. The eclectic model of the blame stage

Figure 3. The eclectic model of the blame avoidance stage

Arab World English Journal 343

Results and Discussion

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Blame Stage 105 43.5 122 50.6 15 6.2 242 39.1

Total 350 56.6 199 32.03 70 11.3 619 100

Pragma Rhetorical Strategies

Blame Stage 71 45.5

Blame Avoidance Stage 85 54.5

Total 156 100

Arab World English Journal 345

Positive Negative Bald off- Total

55 52.3 31 29.5 19 18.09 10 10

No. % No. % No. % No. %

1 3 5.5 4 7.3 1 1.8 8 14.6

3 16 29.1 2 3.6 0 0 18 32.7

4 22 40 2 3.6 1 1.8 25 45.4

Total 45 81.8 8 14.5 2 3.6 55 100

Arab World English Journal 346

Arab World English Journal 347

Positive Negative Total

No. % No. % No. %

63 51.6 59 48.3 122 100

Sessio Make the other Disassociate

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1 8 12.7 0 0 1 1.6 1 1.6 10 15.9

4 31 49.2 2 3.15 1 1.6 0 0 32 53.9

Total 58 92.05 2 3.15 2 3.2 1 1.6 63 100

Arab World English Journal 348

Violation of Grice's Maxims

Arab World English Journal 349

Blame Avoidance Stage

Positive Politeness Strategies

Arab World English Journal 351

Arab World English Journal 352

Arab World English Journal 353

Violation of Grice's maxims Strategies

Violation of Grice's Maxims Strategies

Arab World English Journal 354

Violation of Grice's Maxims Strategies

Hyperbo Number- Shifting Metapho

Arab World English Journal 355